[Lnc-business] Fwd: IALP charter questions

[James Lark]

Dear colleagues:

     I hope all is well with you.  Allow me to mention that Geoff Neale 
informed me of his distribution of an earlier version of the draft 
charter roughly two weeks prior to posting the document I mentioned in 
my previous message.  He indicated that the document posted on Feb. 1 
was a revision based upon feedback concerning the earlier version.

     As always, thanks for your work for liberty.  I look forward to 
seeing you in Phoenix next month.

     Take care,
     Jim

     James W. Lark, III
     Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
     University of Virginia

     Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
-----

On 2/10/2015 5:33 PM, James Lark wrote:
> Dear Geoff:
>
>     I hope all is well with you.  In one of your recent message to 
> Alicia Mattson concerning the IALP, you wrote the following:
>
> Dr. Lark is a member of the Facebook group where all communications, 
> including announcement of the conference, and the charter, were 
> distributed.  All of the countries that have already ratified the 
> charter, and those intending to, have access to the group. By the way, 
> Arvin Vohra and Nick Sarwark are also on the same group. I have no 
> clue whether or not these individuals have notifications turned on or 
> off, or whether any have visited the group page, but the information 
> that has been seen by Belgium, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, 
> Tunisia, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, etc. and did not slip their notice.
>
>     Allow me to share some information with you regarding this matter; 
> please note that I have taken the liberty of copying my LNC colleagues 
> with this message.  When I read your comments, I assumed that you were 
> referring to another Libertarian Facebook group of which we are both 
> members and for which I receive notifications of new content.  I was 
> surprised by your suggestion that information regarding a draft 
> charter had been posted, because I could not find any such information 
> on the pages associated with this group.
>
>     However, after conducting a search of Facebook groups I came 
> across the IALP Forward Planning Group, and discovered to my surprise 
> that I am a member of the group; apparently I was added to the group 
> by Guy Montrose several months ago.  However, for some reason I was 
> unaware of the group's existence.  I do not know whether this is due 
> to a problem with the Facebook notification mechanism or whether I 
> didn't notice information indicating that Mr. Montrose had subscribed 
> me to the group.
>
>     In any event, I did not know about the group until a few minutes 
> ago.  Since you did not mention it explicitly in your message to Ms. 
> Mattson, allow me to note that you made the draft charter available to 
> the IALP planning group members in a posting on Feb. 1.  Had I been 
> aware of the posting, I would have reviewed the draft and offered my 
> comments.
>
>     As always, thanks for your work for liberty.
>
>     Take care,
>     Jim
>
>     James W. Lark, III
>     Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
>     University of Virginia
>
>     Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> -----
>
> On 2/10/2015 12:56 AM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>> Forwarding Geoff's reply to my comments.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Geoffrey Neale* <liber8or at austin.rr.com 
>> <mailto:liber8or at austin.rr.com>>
>> Date: Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:38 PM
>> Subject: RE: IALP charter questions
>> To: Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com <mailto:agmattson at gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>> Alicia,
>>
>> The motion as passed by the Convention in 2014 was:
>>
>> Be it resolved that the assembled delegates of the 2014 Libertarian 
>> National Convention hereby call for the creation of an International 
>> Association of Libertarian Parties.
>>
>> And whereas, our outgoing chair, Geoffrey Neale, has pursued this 
>> effort, we recommend that he be appointed by the LNC as a 
>> representative to begin discussions with our counterparts in other 
>> countries.
>>
>> I don’t see any specificity in this resolution at all as to the LNC 
>> reviewing anything.
>>
>> Dr. Lark is a member of the Facebook group where all communications, 
>> including announcement of the conference, and the charter, were 
>> distributed. All of the countries that have already ratified the 
>> charter, and those intending to, have access to the group. By the 
>> way, Arvin Vohra and Nick Sarwark are also on the same group. I have 
>> no clue whether or not these individuals have notifications turned on 
>> or off, or whether any have visited the group page, but the 
>> information that has been seen by Belgium, Russia, France, Germany, 
>> Italy, Tunisia, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, etc. and did not slip 
>> their notice.
>>
>> As to all of the rest, you spent way too much time writing.
>>
>> There is no organization yet. This is a STARTUP.  We cannot consult 
>> with a professional (paid) parliamentarian because we don’t exist, 
>> don’t have a bank account, etc. This first meeting in person is the 
>> meeting in David Nolan’s living room that started the LP in the first 
>> place.  I don’t know just how many of these things they worked out 
>> that first day, but it was nowhere near as large as your list.  If 
>> they had to do this first, the LP would not exist today.
>>
>> The reason we are meeting in person is exactly so that we can work 
>> out these issues face to face. The reason why the charter is skeletal 
>> in nature is to define a scope of the organization as a basis, and 
>> add the necessary muscle – face to face.  If we had to get agreement 
>> before the organization exists, what does Robert’s say about how to 
>> count the votes? Can Robert’s apply to a non-entity. How could we 
>> weigh votes from parties unlikely to join, who are looking for 
>> reasons to say no, versus parties that are trying to make it work? If 
>> the LNC votes not to join, why should anyone else give a damn what 
>> their concerns are?
>>
>> It will cost the LNC and the LP nothing to join, and they can leave 
>> if sufficient progress is not made in short order, for whatever 
>> reason you like. Heck you can join on March 6^th , and leave on March 
>> 9^th . If things take a distinctly negative slant, I’ll be holding 
>> the door for the LNC and the LP. The LNC can also pass along their 
>> concerns if they vote to join, and their representative will raise 
>> their concerns at the meeting.
>>
>> However, it has been made clear to me that the creation of the IALP 
>> will proceed with or without the USLP. If it is without, it would be 
>> a shame.
>>
>> Perfection is ALWAYS the enemy of the good.
>>
>> However, I will be passing your list, which you admit is just a first 
>> glance, on to the group.  I think it will serve a very valuable purpose.
>>
>> Geoffrey Neale
>>
>>
> <SNIP> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150210/9e510d3f/attachment-0002.html>